Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: It is important to the region because it is the entrance to the AmazonÃa and this is an area of high importance for biodiversity of the planet.
Evidence B:biosphere of recognized importance by UNESCO; part of hot spot and key biodiversity area; high biodiversity; high cultural diversity
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: Information according to irrecoverable Carbon Map
Evidence B:Intact forest area
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: Information according to Presence of formally Recognized IPLC lands and the information provided in the EoI 386. It refers to the participation of native communities and rural communities across © s of the Committee © of coordination of RBM and its committee © s district.
Evidence B:Indigenous communities seem to have a governance system through which they govern their commons and are also part of larger governance systems
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: It makes an interesting explanation but faltarÃan details to say who are clearly explained. Especially these details are not evident in the design ± or proposal.
Evidence B:explains the reality and role of Comunidades Campesinas, Nativas and un-contacted communities
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: The reserve is in an area where it is particularly important threats arising from its location and has all the AmazonÃa: Effects Climático change, forest fires (DC and antrópicas causes change of use of the soil), on exploitation resource (wood from the forest amazónico), current situation by COVID. There is no mention in any case, aspects related to mining industry and illegal activities are extremely important in that area. All these threats have potential impact for peoples in isolation and initial contact.
Evidence B:Main challenge seems to come from deforestation, forest fires and extraction all pushed by economic and development pressures… this will only increase without action
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: There is justification but have limitations for execution. Threat conditions are not controllable in many cases by the lack of ability of states to safeguarding existing threats.
Evidence B:Peru is signatory to important conventions such as CBD and ILO 169 and seems to have programs that are congruent with the goals of these.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: The EoI mentions support for SERNANP The implementation of this proposal. It is not clear what the EoI mentioned in this regard.
Evidence B:Estrategia Regional de Cambio Climático del Gobierno Regional del Cusco (GOREC) and programs of Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas – MEF seem to be supportive
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: They are reported several interesting experiences that can be linked or articulated as Matsiguenka House, sub-brand of productive agroforestry projects, in addition to activities resulting from initiatives tree debris by the Rio Manu.
Evidence B:Casa Matsiguenka that addresses tourism, salvaging of trees program; sustainable agriculture programs seem to have been succesful and the organization seems to have a longstanding presence
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: There are initiatives mentioned and are interesting and can be aligned with the objectives of the project (but it is not clear objective in general) but additionally the issue of co-financing is unclear.
Evidence B:Several projects are listed and the MEF financing initiatives seem very relevant
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: It is mentioned in the design ± or more aspects but are not adequately explicit in the design ± or project. There are sections of the design ± or can be learned and improved to narrow its scope as the goal of eduacación intercultural and sustainable development.
Evidence B:it proposes to strengthen governance capacity; build the knowledge base and education capacity; strengthen the economy addressing generational and gender inclusion
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: The justification of the proposal has some interesting arguments. However, the design ± or (general and specific) objectives are very general and forth several elements that disperse the attention of what is to be achieved. They’re almost all results made without an approach to bring change to the end of the concatenated project activities. The first objective is wrong in its description and developed several activities They’re written as targets. Generally it has very interesting aspects about but you lack focus (very broad), clearly the design ± o, and not understood as consecusión of activities lead to make a change to the end of the project. The articulation between objectives could be improved significantly. Overuse of the appearance of gà © nero equal detracts from their inclusion and how is alcanzarÃan is unknown.
Evidence B:it proposes to strengthen governance capacity; build the knowledge base and education capacity; strengthen the economy addressing generational and gender inclusion. These seem to come together well.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: I think that identifying potential threats and actions are well suited ± but in the design or objectives and activities the relationship is lost between this project and how to achieve and create change to address threats. It can be improved for greater range and determining opportunities for Conservation of IPLC-led Initiatives.
Evidence B:The objectives and activities seem to be well thought and realistic.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: difficult to answer
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: projects- potential initiatives of the State that may be linked but it is unclear are mentioned how you can get these activities as co-financing.
Evidence B:8 projects are listed and the potential funding form MEF seems very relevant.
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: They are provided but I fail to see how these figures alcanzarÃan through the design ± o. But they mentioned indicators. If improving the design ± or possibly the scope of such indicators would understand better.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: The proposed additional indicators are clear and have a focus of ICI.
Evidence B:These seem to be have been well though and elaborated on
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: several interesting initiatives aspects are mentioned, but I fail to see in the design ± or to pose a robust and long-term vision.
Evidence B:Seems to be well aligned with national and regional strategies and programs; has a number of allies such as PNUD, FZS, ACCA, SDZG-P, CREES and the communities have a long established history of organization
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: They are described properly and potentially.
Evidence B:seems to be well articulated with national plans
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: elements used in the design ± or the issue of inclusion of the approach but does not understand how it would reach. It is justified in the development of the EoI but fails to see how it thought tà © technically. A design ± or without concrete proposals and many statements on the subject.
Evidence B:A number of internal and external actions are listed.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: There are interesting or innovative activities within the design ± or, as is the use of marks. In the design ± or in general there are interesting activities but I think as a whole does not see the results aticulación to achieve change and transformation. It may be reformulated to narrow the proposal, clarify and focus on a particular change to the end of the process.
Evidence B:The proposed project seems to be consistent with indigenous vision of economy and land stewardship integration. The elements of the project seem to be coherent with this and it could generate lessons for other regions.
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: It is not clear to me who introduced the proposal. According to what I gather is that representatives of the Committee © of coordination of RBM and its committee © s district, where I understand that there are representatives of peasant and native communities (PICL recognized by UNESCO). It is understood that an alliance of the MBR with the Company Zoológica of Franfurt.
Evidence B:The organization identifies as an IPCL and the project includes several other indigenous organizations that operate on the ground.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: The committee © of coordination integrates RBM and its committee © s district. It speaks of specific experience in the field.
Evidence B:Organization has 43 years of experience and has a number of projects that bring together on the ground organizations
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: It is not clear to me
Evidence B:Organization has 43 years of experience and has a number of projects that bring together on the ground organizations
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: 0
Evidence B:Has done so for 43 years.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: It mentioned that currently do not have authorization for immediate receipt of funds. I understand that would be the Frankfurt Zoological Society who recibirÃan funds and they Provision must have an analysis capabilities for delivering funds.
Evidence B:Has managed large projects in the past
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: There is a direct experience of the organization.
Evidence B:Indicated yes and gave explanation